Heavenly Mother

[Calm]

Has this one been posted yet...may have missed it in my reading:

“How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee” (Irenaeus Against Heresies 4:523, Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:523-524)

[Damien the Leper]

Human characteristics like love? Human laws like justice?

No. I mean subject to the things that make us flawed. God is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being. His very existence transcends everything we know.

[Bart Burk]

I have to reject the idea that Heavenly Mother is either Mary or the Holy Ghost, because she must be a resurrected being if the Father is one. Neither Mary nor the HG held that status early enough.

Jesus could be God and create the entire universe without being resurrected. While Mary wasn't divine (she was born of two human parents) it is obvious she must have had an exalted position among women in the preexistence. Mormon theology doesn't state how spirits were organized in the preexistence. Maybe it wasn't necessary for Mary to be a resurrected being to be involved. Or maybe God didn't need A Heavenly Mother to organize spirits.

What if exalted human beings create physical bodies after their resurrection for spirits God organizes rather than organizing spirits? The fact is Mormon doctrine is unclear regarding what type of eternal increase we would participate in. If one rejects the idea that God had a Father, it may be more logical to believe he organizes spirits, and we continue to provide physical bodies for the spirits God organizes.

I might add that in a real way Mary is the mother of our spiritual birth. When we are born again we are adopted into the family of God in a new way. Mary, as mother of the king, in her own way becomes our spiritual mother and thus mother of the Church. Mary participates in our salvation by bringing Christ into the world and nurturing him as his mother. Catholics believe she was assumed into heaven and is heavenly mother through her assumption. I think this could easily be applied in Mormon doctrine as the way Mary becomes literally our heavenly mother and mother of our spirits through Christ's atonement and resurrection. That doesn't mean you would need to worship her or pray to her, but it would give you a greater understanding of why she should be honored.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Bart Burk

[Darren10]

Vlogadon & Bart Burk;

thanks to you both, again to Volgadon, for giving me a heads up on the montists. The couple of articles I read on them does agree with you, Bart, that they were like today's Pentacostal churches. And whil Volgadon is absolutely correct in that they were hardly a part from Christianity, they did seem to strike at odds with the early Christian Church. Tertullian particularly was critical of the early Christian church leadership and much of his apologetics was for the Montasts. Perhaps much of his Christian apologetics were for Montism (sp?) ?

Montis teacheings were eventually declared heresy .

[Darren10]

Seriously, I believe the differences are mostly semantic. I've never believed the LDS belief that the Father has a body of flesh and bones is problematic for a Trinitarian. His materiality would not change His Being as God in any way.

I agree they are small semantic differences but the implications are significant. in fact, the very reason God was declared as "immaterial" in the creeds is to NOT limit God by human "material". Also, as I pointed out, trinitarian belief hit a tricky spot in consistancy in that Jesus is God incarnate, God is "immaterial", Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection and noone disagrees that he kept His body.

The LDS do not view "material" as a soteriolocigal impediment. in fact, they view the human body as an absolute step towards deification. There's a great little post on this topc by Daniel Peterson. Give me some time to dig it up.

[Bart Burk]

I agree they are small semantic differences but the implications are significant. in fact, the very reason God was declared as "immaterial" in the creeds is to NOT limit God by human "material". Also, as I pointed out, trinitarian belief hit a tricky spot in consistancy in that Jesus is God incarnate, God is "immaterial", Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection and noone disagrees that he kept His body.

The LDS do not view "material" as a soteriolocigal impediment. in fact, they view the human body as an absolute step towards deification. There's a great little post on this topc by Daniel Peterson. Give me some time to dig it up.

The Trinitarian doctrine does not hit a stumbling block because Jesus has a body. Jesus is declared to be 100 percent God and 100 percent man. Jesus is both human and divine so his body is no problem for a Trinitarian. There is nothing in trinitarianism which requires God to be immaterial -- the Nicene Creed does not address God's materiality. The term substance or consubstantial does not refer to material substance at all. It is merely a philosophical term meant to declare that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are exactly the same from an ontological standpoint.

[Calm]

Not sure if Jeremy has linked to this or not, have lost track of what has been said...but for those interested in the subject of Heavenly Mother, I came across this today:

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/jane-lead-and-the-restoration-or-in-praise-our-heavenly-mother/#more-10895

[onefour1]

Off topic question: I would like to post a topic but this board is telling me that I am not allowed to post a topic. At what point am I allowed to post a topic? I have searched the board and can't find this information anywhere. Help!

[Darren10]

I found the Peterson article.

“Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter” and “The Mormon Moment” is an article promoting a certain Stephen H. Webb who promotes the belief that Jesus taking upon Himself flesh wasa nabsolutely necessary part for His eternal deification. That without taking upon Him human flesh Jesus would never have reached the eternal glory He did.

Interesting.

Here's Amazon's description of Webb's book (bold mine):

In this groundbreaking study, Stephen H. Webb offers a new theological understanding of the material and spiritual: that, far from being contradictory, they unite in the very stuff of the eternal Jesus Christ.

Accepting matter as a perfection (or predicate) of the divine requires a rethinking of the immateriality of God, the doctrine of creation out of nothing, the Chalcedonian formula of the person of Christ, and the analogical nature of religious language. It also requires a careful reconsideration of Augustine's appropriation of the Neo-Platonic understanding of divine incorporeality as well as Origen's rejection of anthropomorphism. Webb locates his position in contrast to evolutionary theories of emergent materialism and the popular idea that the world is God's body. He draws on a little known theological position known as the ''heavenly flesh'' Christology, investigates the many misunderstandings of its origins and relation to the Monophysite movement, and supplements it with retrievals of Duns Scotus, Caspar Scwenckfeld and Eastern Orthodox reflections on the transfiguration. Also included in Webb's study are discussions of classical figures like Barth and Aquinas as well as more recent theological proposals from Bruce McCormack, David Hart, and Colin Gunton. Perhaps most provocatively, the book argues that Mormonism provides the most challenging, urgent, and potentially rewarding source for metaphysical renewal today.

Webb's concept of Christian materialism challenges traditional Christian common sense, and aims to show the way to a more metaphysically sound orthodoxy.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Eternal-God-Metaphysics/dp/0199827958/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352917430&sr=1-1&keywords=STephen+H.+WEbb

[Calm]

Off topic question: I would like to post a topic but this board is telling me that I am not allowed to post a topic. At what point am I allowed to post a topic? I have searched the board and can't find this information anywhere. Help!

After 25 posts you can post a topic and edit.

[volgadon]

Off topic question: I would like to post a topic but this board is telling me that I am not allowed to post a topic. At what point am I allowed to post a topic? I have searched the board and can't find this information anywhere. Help!

Would you like me to start a topic for you?

[Darren10]

There is nothing in trinitarianism which requires God to be immaterial

Most relevant to this dialogue is definition #3:

im·ma·te·ri·al

/ˌɪm əˈtɪər i əl/ Show Spelled [im-uh-teer-ee-uh l] Show IPA

adjective

1. of no essential consequence; unimportant.

2. not pertinent; irrelevant.

3. not material; incorporeal; spiritual.

Here's the tricky spot I see: God is immaterial: "incorporeal" or "spiritual". If Jesus is one Being with the Father as God, how can God be immaterial?

[Standard]

We have great respect for our heavenly mother, however we do not draw large attention to her in a (rather successful) attempt to avoid disrespecting her. Many people will speak ill of our heavenly father and we want to do everything we can to keep our mothers name sacred and away from evil-speakers.

[volgadon]

We have great respect for our heavenly mother, however we do not draw large attention to her in a (rather successful) attempt to avoid disrespecting her. Many people will speak ill of our heavenly father and we want to do everything we can to keep our mothers name sacred and away from evil-speakers.

We really don't know that this is the case.

[Damien the Leper]

We have great respect for our heavenly mother, however we do not draw large attention to her in a (rather successful) attempt to avoid disrespecting her. Many people will speak ill of our heavenly father and we want to do everything we can to keep our mothers name sacred and away from evil-speakers.

I respect this position but it is the typical response. If Heavenly Mother is real and is a Goddess, then the insolent defamation is essentially a non-issue. She is completely divine and can deal with it in her Godly Mother way. She is not to be undermined by our own human emotions and responses.

[Calm]

If there is anyone we are protecting by not speaking of her, it would be ourselves avoiding the condemnation that we take on when we disrespect the Father.....

But somehow I doubt that is the reason for the lack of revelation.

[Bart Burk]

Most relevant to this dialogue is definition #3:

Here's the tricky spot I see: God is immaterial: "incorporeal" or "spiritual". If Jesus is one Being with the Father as God, how can God be immaterial?

Jesus is one in Being with the Father, not one Being with the Father. Let us assume for argument's sake that God the Father has a physical body. It would not have been that physical body that created the universe -- it would have been his will through his mind that would have had to work through the entire universe. The traditional understanding of God's mind is that it is immaterial. God created the universe through Jesus before Jesus had become incarnate. Jesus was God before becoming incarnate, but his mind was already able to participate in creation with his Father. The terms being or substance do not have anything to do with anything physical. That is why I can say the Father could have a body without doing damage to the Trinity. The Trinity is looking at spiritual reality, not physical reality. Edited January 7, 2013 by Bart Burk

[Bart Burk]

After reviewing this thread I am reminded that I often hear Mormons argue against immaterial substance, but I wonder if the substance of their argument has any material.

[BlueDreams]

After reviewing this thread I am reminded that I often hear Mormons argue against immaterial substance, but I wonder if the substance of their argument has any material.

After reviewing half of this thread, i'm left scratching my head at just about everybody: Mormon, Catholic, recently Episcopalian and whatever else may be rep'd here. And I'm currently scratching my head, wondering what you mean by this as well. From what I can tell, everybody has about the same amount of material for the substance of their argument: scriptural quoting, quoting from others they find authoritative, and their own opinion mixed into one. Three in argumentation one in being .

Also, Valentinus....on being subject to what makes us flawed....what, in your opinion, makes humanity flawed?

With luv,

BD

[Bart Burk]

After reviewing half of this thread, i'm left scratching my head at just about everybody: Mormon, Catholic, recently Episcopalian and whatever else may be rep'd here. And I'm currently scratching my head, wondering what you mean by this as well. From what I can tell, everybody has about the same amount of material for the substance of their argument: scriptural quoting, quoting from others they find authoritative, and their own opinion mixed into one. Three in argumentation one in being .

Also, Valentinus....on being subject to what makes us flawed....what, in your opinion, makes humanity flawed?

With luv,

BD

I was just pointing out that the term substance is not always used to describe something physical. The substance of an argument is not a material thing.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Bart Burk

[BlueDreams]

I was just pointing out that the term substance is not always used to describe something physical. The substance of an argument is not a material thing.

Ah, ok. You could have just said so

Thanks for the clarification

[Damien the Leper]

After reviewing half of this thread, i'm left scratching my head at just about everybody: Mormon, Catholic, recently Episcopalian and whatever else may be rep'd here. And I'm currently scratching my head, wondering what you mean by this as well. From what I can tell, everybody has about the same amount of material for the substance of their argument: scriptural quoting, quoting from others they find authoritative, and their own opinion mixed into one. Three in argumentation one in being .

Also, Valentinus....on being subject to what makes us flawed....what, in your opinion, makes humanity flawed?

With luv,

BD

Reverse the question. What doesn't make humanity flawed? But to answer your question, it seems that humans are governed or allow themselves to be governed by their emotions. We think in three dimensional terms. We oppress. We are limited by the temporal flesh and bone in our bodies.

[volgadon]

Reverse the question. What doesn't make humanity flawed? But to answer your question, it seems that humans are governed or allow themselves to be governed by their emotions. We think in three dimensional terms. We oppress. We are limited by the temporal flesh and bone in our bodies.

I would say that God is governed by his emotions, too. His infinite love for us, to be precise. Divine passibility, as Terryl Givens described it. Otherwise, we'd all be toast.

[Calm]

Reverse the question. What doesn't make humanity flawed? But to answer your question, it seems that humans are governed or allow themselves to be governed by their emotions. We think in three dimensional terms. We oppress. We are limited by the temporal flesh and bone in our bodies.

God chose to create because he loves us...is that not him being governed by his emotions?

Add-on: I see Volgadon had the identical thought, lol.

Edited January 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

1 John 4:7-9

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God's love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world that we might live through him.

It is important to understand FIRST that GOD IS LOVE and then God loves. Remember, God crates and loves because he chooses to. He didn't have to create humans to worship him.